A new morning-after pill that is available for free by prescription in Great Britain may be available over the counter as soon as 2012. EllaOne provides “protection” from pregnancy for five days-- two days more than the current morning-after pill.
According to a document published by the European Medicine Agency, EllaOne has three “mechanisms of action”: the “ability to block, disrupt or delay ovulation,” the “ability to block or delay ovulation even after the onset of the LH surge,” and “ability to delay maturation of the endometrium likely resulting in prevention of implantation.” By preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg, EllaOne acts as an abortifacient and takes a human life.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5292
Friday, January 29, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
New Washington state bill could have 'chilling effect' on pregnancy centers
Olympia, Wash., Jan 26, 2010 / 07:35 pm (CNA).- NARAL Pro-Choice Washington and Planned Parenthood are supporting legislation that could have a “chilling effect” on faith-based pregnancy centers in the state of Washington, says a pro-life nurse who will testify against the bill in an upcoming legislative hearing.
The new Washington State bill, “Concerning Limited Service Pregnancy Centers” (HB 2837/SB 6452), will be heard in the Senate Health and Long Term Care Committee on Jan. 27.
Paula Cullen, RN, founding director of Life Services of Spokane, plans to testify on Jan. 27 and told CNA on Monday that the new bills “attempt to regulate pregnancy centers” and would have “a very chilling effect on their ability to help women.”
Explaining some of the details of the legislation and how it would affect pregnancy centers in the state of Washington, Cullen said that if passed, it would require them to “provide reproductive health care according to standards set by Planned Parenthood” and groups like it.
According to Cullen, the bill would also require increased administrative regulations that could paralyze their efforts. An example of this, Cullen explained that pregnancy centers might be forced to post signs on their front doors and throughout their facilities saying that they do not provide abortions or any family planning services that Planned Parenthood and the like provide.
“That is a deterrent to any woman who's considering her options,” said Cullen. “We already disclose what we do and don't do through forms that we have women read and sign.”
NARAL Pro-Choice Washington's support for the bill was confirmed in a Jan. 13 press release that alleged, “Women who have sought help from such centers have gone there believing they were going to receive medical care and unbiased pregnancy options counseling from licensed professionals. Instead, they often received false or misleading information about abortion, pregnancy, contraception, or sexually transmitted infections, had their requested medical records withheld, and were denied needed referrals for reproductive health care.”
Washington state Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-Wash.) also explained in the press release that the new legislation “isn't about burdening the centers. It's about establishing standards for transparency and accuracy for high quality care.”
Cullen countered these claims by noting there is a difference between pregnancy resource centers and pregnancy medical centers and that each comply with state law and medical accuracy standards.
“The medical pregnancy centers always work under the supervision and direction of a licensed physician,” Cullen stressed. “That is always the case.” Further legislative requirements for standards of accuracy are “unnecessary,” the pro-life nurse said.
The Attorney General's Office has also estimated the bill will cost Washington taxpayers more than a half million over the next four years.
Jim Thomas, Director of Adult Faith Formation for Catholic Social Teaching and Family Life for the Archdiocese of Seattle, sent CNA a statement which described another requirement of the new legislation.
Pregnancy centers would be expected to “inform a woman that she is about to receive an over the counter pregnancy test and allow her to self-administer it.” Failure to do this would be considered a violation of the Consumer Protection Act, which could bring about lawsuits against pregnancy centers where damages up to $10,000 could be awarded. “Many clinics may have to close as a result of a lawsuit,” said the statement.
According to a press release from pregnancy center supporters, in 2009, pregnancy resource centers and medical clinics in the state of Washington served over 60,000 women at no charge and provided support and social services for over 34,000. In addition, pregnancy centers had over 22 social service agencies in Washington State refer clients to them and provided free services to men, women and teenagers totaling a value of over $15 million.
“It will be critical for legislators to learn for themselves about the tremendous contribution of pregnancy centers in their districts,” said Cullen in Monday's press release.“They will find that these entities have been serving their communities for years without complaint and play a critical role in providing a web of support to women facing unplanned pregnancies. This proposed regulation is not only unnecessary and unwarranted, but also a slap in the face to these charities that have been working so hard for so long.”
Pregnancy centers have existed in Washington State for 25 years and have relied primarily on donations and volunteers.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new_washington_state_bill_could_have_chilling_effect_on_pregnancy_centers/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
The new Washington State bill, “Concerning Limited Service Pregnancy Centers” (HB 2837/SB 6452), will be heard in the Senate Health and Long Term Care Committee on Jan. 27.
Paula Cullen, RN, founding director of Life Services of Spokane, plans to testify on Jan. 27 and told CNA on Monday that the new bills “attempt to regulate pregnancy centers” and would have “a very chilling effect on their ability to help women.”
Explaining some of the details of the legislation and how it would affect pregnancy centers in the state of Washington, Cullen said that if passed, it would require them to “provide reproductive health care according to standards set by Planned Parenthood” and groups like it.
According to Cullen, the bill would also require increased administrative regulations that could paralyze their efforts. An example of this, Cullen explained that pregnancy centers might be forced to post signs on their front doors and throughout their facilities saying that they do not provide abortions or any family planning services that Planned Parenthood and the like provide.
“That is a deterrent to any woman who's considering her options,” said Cullen. “We already disclose what we do and don't do through forms that we have women read and sign.”
NARAL Pro-Choice Washington's support for the bill was confirmed in a Jan. 13 press release that alleged, “Women who have sought help from such centers have gone there believing they were going to receive medical care and unbiased pregnancy options counseling from licensed professionals. Instead, they often received false or misleading information about abortion, pregnancy, contraception, or sexually transmitted infections, had their requested medical records withheld, and were denied needed referrals for reproductive health care.”
Washington state Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-Wash.) also explained in the press release that the new legislation “isn't about burdening the centers. It's about establishing standards for transparency and accuracy for high quality care.”
Cullen countered these claims by noting there is a difference between pregnancy resource centers and pregnancy medical centers and that each comply with state law and medical accuracy standards.
“The medical pregnancy centers always work under the supervision and direction of a licensed physician,” Cullen stressed. “That is always the case.” Further legislative requirements for standards of accuracy are “unnecessary,” the pro-life nurse said.
The Attorney General's Office has also estimated the bill will cost Washington taxpayers more than a half million over the next four years.
Jim Thomas, Director of Adult Faith Formation for Catholic Social Teaching and Family Life for the Archdiocese of Seattle, sent CNA a statement which described another requirement of the new legislation.
Pregnancy centers would be expected to “inform a woman that she is about to receive an over the counter pregnancy test and allow her to self-administer it.” Failure to do this would be considered a violation of the Consumer Protection Act, which could bring about lawsuits against pregnancy centers where damages up to $10,000 could be awarded. “Many clinics may have to close as a result of a lawsuit,” said the statement.
According to a press release from pregnancy center supporters, in 2009, pregnancy resource centers and medical clinics in the state of Washington served over 60,000 women at no charge and provided support and social services for over 34,000. In addition, pregnancy centers had over 22 social service agencies in Washington State refer clients to them and provided free services to men, women and teenagers totaling a value of over $15 million.
“It will be critical for legislators to learn for themselves about the tremendous contribution of pregnancy centers in their districts,” said Cullen in Monday's press release.“They will find that these entities have been serving their communities for years without complaint and play a critical role in providing a web of support to women facing unplanned pregnancies. This proposed regulation is not only unnecessary and unwarranted, but also a slap in the face to these charities that have been working so hard for so long.”
Pregnancy centers have existed in Washington State for 25 years and have relied primarily on donations and volunteers.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/new_washington_state_bill_could_have_chilling_effect_on_pregnancy_centers/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Mexican cardinal: Church cannot only be concerned with 'the afterlife'
Mexico City, Mexico, Jan 26, 2010 / 02:58 pm (CNA).- In a direct reference to political groups supporting same-sex “marriage,” Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, the Archbishop of Mexico City, recalled that the mission of the Church is not limited to teaching about “the afterlife,” but that she must also address “today's problems and situations.”
During his homily on Sunday, the cardinal underscored that “the Gospel must be applied to the present-day situations of the here and now.” He continued saying that the voice of the Church is not limited simply to speaking about “the afterlife.”
“The Church is the body of Christ and is the privileged place for proclaiming the Gospel,” Cardinal Rivera said. He then encouraged the faithful to live and apply the Gospel of Christ to the public square, as “the mission of Jesus and of the Church is to be a spark of light, liberation, kindness and grace.”
“The Gospel must be read in light of present-day problems and situations, so that the spark of divine light, kindness and grace will be ignited for us. Only then will it truly be good news,” he added.
The cardinal criticized those who wish to limit the Church’s voice and work. “We sometimes hear the nonsense that the Church should just worry about the afterlife, but we must see Jesus through the eyes of the present, with all of today’s problems and situations.”
In this sense, the cardinal concluded, Mexican Catholics “continue to feel sorrow for the suffering of our brothers and sisters in Haiti, and we must continue collaborating so that our aid will reach those in need.”
this can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/mexican_cardinal_church_must_address_current_issues_not_only_the_afterlife/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
During his homily on Sunday, the cardinal underscored that “the Gospel must be applied to the present-day situations of the here and now.” He continued saying that the voice of the Church is not limited simply to speaking about “the afterlife.”
“The Church is the body of Christ and is the privileged place for proclaiming the Gospel,” Cardinal Rivera said. He then encouraged the faithful to live and apply the Gospel of Christ to the public square, as “the mission of Jesus and of the Church is to be a spark of light, liberation, kindness and grace.”
“The Gospel must be read in light of present-day problems and situations, so that the spark of divine light, kindness and grace will be ignited for us. Only then will it truly be good news,” he added.
The cardinal criticized those who wish to limit the Church’s voice and work. “We sometimes hear the nonsense that the Church should just worry about the afterlife, but we must see Jesus through the eyes of the present, with all of today’s problems and situations.”
In this sense, the cardinal concluded, Mexican Catholics “continue to feel sorrow for the suffering of our brothers and sisters in Haiti, and we must continue collaborating so that our aid will reach those in need.”
this can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/mexican_cardinal_church_must_address_current_issues_not_only_the_afterlife/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Monday, January 25, 2010
Brazilian President Seeks to Secure Abortion as 'Right,' Ban Crucifixes in Government Buildings
BRAZILIA (LifeSiteNews.com) - Brazilian President Luiz Lula da Silva has introduced a massive legislative reform package in the last year of his term that would secure abortion as a "human right," impose socialist and homosexualist ideology in the schools and media, and ban crucifixes from government facilities, among other measures.
The legislative program, which is called the Third National Program for Human Rights (PNDH-3), would establish a level of control over the media and private property that is being called a nonviolent "coup d'etat" and a socialist party "dictatorship." It has elicited widespread protest from institutions ranging from the Catholic Church to military leaders, the agricultural sector, and even members of the president's own cabinet.
The leadership of the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops (CNBB) has issued a declaration "reaffirming its position, manifested many times, in defense of life and the family, and against the decriminalization of abortion, against marriage between people of the same sex and the right of adoption of children by homosexual couples."
The CNBB leadership "also rejects the creation of 'mechanisms to impede the display of religious symbols in public establishments of the Union,' because it regards such an intolerant measure as ignoring our historical roots."
A Socialist Party Dictatorship?
If the Brazilian Labor Party succeeds in imposing the legislative package contained in the PNDH-3, it will receive broad powers to shut down media outlets that disagree with its ideology, impose its pro-abortion and homosexualist political agenda on the entire country, and undermine the rights of private property. The extensive powers proposed by the government have led at least one prominent Brazilian commentator to speak of a party "dictatorship."
For example, the Program treats the killing of unborn children as a "human right," to be protected by the state. Directive 9 includes "supporting the approval of legislation that decriminalizes abortion, considering the autonomy of women to make decisions concerning their bodies."
It also orders the creation of "campaigns and educational actions to deconstruct the stereotypes related to sex professionals."
Education and Culture in Human Rights," the fifth "axis" in the Program, directs that children from "infancy" (early childhood) must be taught the government's concept of "human rights," which includes "the study of themes of gender and sexual orientation" for the purpose of "combating prejudice, which is sometimes rooted in the family itself."
Directive 10 strikes a decisive blow against the Brazilian tradition of displaying crucifixes in public facilities, mandating the creation of "mechanisms to impede the display of religious symbols in public establishments of the Union (Brazil)."
It also proposes to "carry out campaigns and educational activities to deconstruct the stereotypes related to ... sexual identity and orientation."
The Program's Directive 19 requires the creation of curricula "for all of the levels and forms of teaching for basic education," for "promoting the recognition and/or respect for the diversities of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity…"
The Program's educational directives will have an even greater impact given the fact that the government recently passed a constitutional amendment requiring that all children be sent to school at the age of four.
Broad Control over the Media and Private Property
Directive 22 of the PNDH-3 would establish state control over broadcast media content, requiring radio and TV stations to show "respect for Human Rights in services of radio broadcasting (radio and television) that have [government] concessions, permission, or authorization, as a condition for the awarding or renewal [of their licenses], foreseeing administrative penalties such as warnings, fines, suspension of programming and cancellation, in accordance with the gravity of the violations committed."
It also directs the creation of "incentives" for "regular investigations that may identify forms, circumstances, and characteristics of violations of Human Rights in the media."
Directive 8 also proposes the use of the media as a mouthpiece of the government's "human rights" indoctrination program for young people, directing the "informing of children and adolescents regarding their rights, by means of joint efforts in schools, print media, television, radio, and internet."
Regarding private property, PNDH-3 proposes that a special "legal framework" be created for the "mediation of urban property conflicts" which will "guarantee the required legal process and the social function of property." It uses similar language for rural property conflicts. According the conservative Spanish publication El Pais, this language is almost identical to that of Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez, who speaks of the concept of "social property."
The Program has caused consternation and provoked threats of resignation from senior military leaders for proposing the creation of a "Truth Commission" to examine crimes committed by the military regime of the 1960s and 70s. Military leaders are exempt from prosecution from such crimes according to current Brazilian laws. Lula has calmed fears among military leaders by agreeing to apply the commission to all violations of "human rights," which presumably includes the terroristic activities of the socialist opposition during the same period.
Controversy Erupts in Brazil
Although President Lula has quieted fears of a socialist witchhunt against its former military enemies, the plan continues to provoke outrage and fierce opposition within Brazil.
Reinaldo Azevedo, blogging for the widely-read news magazine Veja, says that the proposals would constitute a "dictatorship" run by associates of president Luiz Lula, calls it a bloodless "coup d'etat," and compares the regime it proposes to that of Hugo Chavez, who is gradually eliminating civil liberties in Venezuela.
Azevedo also writes that the proposals would "extinguish private property in the country and the cities" and avers that "the Military Regime instituted in 1964 was more explicit and more modest" in its intentions.
Dimas Lara Resende, Secretary-General of the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops, has commented that "next we will have to demolish the statue of Christ the Redeemer."
Broadcast media and agricultural associations have also raised their voices against the proposals.
The President of the National Confederation of Agriculture, Senator Katia Abreu, has reportedly said that the creation of mediation programs in cases in which people invade private property will encourage rural violence and prejudice the rights of property owners. Andre Meloni Nassar, Director General of the Institute for Studies of Commerce and International Businesses writes that the Program is a "funeral for agribusiness."
Even Lula's Minister of Agrigulture, Reinhold Stephanes, has rejected the idea, expressing fears that such measures will "increase the insecurity in the country" and "strengthen radical organizations."
Although Lula has himself expressed concern about some of the material in the Program, he appears determined to defend it, although it threatens to undermine his strong popularity in his last year of office.
This story can be found at: http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35290&page=2
The legislative program, which is called the Third National Program for Human Rights (PNDH-3), would establish a level of control over the media and private property that is being called a nonviolent "coup d'etat" and a socialist party "dictatorship." It has elicited widespread protest from institutions ranging from the Catholic Church to military leaders, the agricultural sector, and even members of the president's own cabinet.
The leadership of the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops (CNBB) has issued a declaration "reaffirming its position, manifested many times, in defense of life and the family, and against the decriminalization of abortion, against marriage between people of the same sex and the right of adoption of children by homosexual couples."
The CNBB leadership "also rejects the creation of 'mechanisms to impede the display of religious symbols in public establishments of the Union,' because it regards such an intolerant measure as ignoring our historical roots."
A Socialist Party Dictatorship?
If the Brazilian Labor Party succeeds in imposing the legislative package contained in the PNDH-3, it will receive broad powers to shut down media outlets that disagree with its ideology, impose its pro-abortion and homosexualist political agenda on the entire country, and undermine the rights of private property. The extensive powers proposed by the government have led at least one prominent Brazilian commentator to speak of a party "dictatorship."
For example, the Program treats the killing of unborn children as a "human right," to be protected by the state. Directive 9 includes "supporting the approval of legislation that decriminalizes abortion, considering the autonomy of women to make decisions concerning their bodies."
It also orders the creation of "campaigns and educational actions to deconstruct the stereotypes related to sex professionals."
Education and Culture in Human Rights," the fifth "axis" in the Program, directs that children from "infancy" (early childhood) must be taught the government's concept of "human rights," which includes "the study of themes of gender and sexual orientation" for the purpose of "combating prejudice, which is sometimes rooted in the family itself."
Directive 10 strikes a decisive blow against the Brazilian tradition of displaying crucifixes in public facilities, mandating the creation of "mechanisms to impede the display of religious symbols in public establishments of the Union (Brazil)."
It also proposes to "carry out campaigns and educational activities to deconstruct the stereotypes related to ... sexual identity and orientation."
The Program's Directive 19 requires the creation of curricula "for all of the levels and forms of teaching for basic education," for "promoting the recognition and/or respect for the diversities of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity…"
The Program's educational directives will have an even greater impact given the fact that the government recently passed a constitutional amendment requiring that all children be sent to school at the age of four.
Broad Control over the Media and Private Property
Directive 22 of the PNDH-3 would establish state control over broadcast media content, requiring radio and TV stations to show "respect for Human Rights in services of radio broadcasting (radio and television) that have [government] concessions, permission, or authorization, as a condition for the awarding or renewal [of their licenses], foreseeing administrative penalties such as warnings, fines, suspension of programming and cancellation, in accordance with the gravity of the violations committed."
It also directs the creation of "incentives" for "regular investigations that may identify forms, circumstances, and characteristics of violations of Human Rights in the media."
Directive 8 also proposes the use of the media as a mouthpiece of the government's "human rights" indoctrination program for young people, directing the "informing of children and adolescents regarding their rights, by means of joint efforts in schools, print media, television, radio, and internet."
Regarding private property, PNDH-3 proposes that a special "legal framework" be created for the "mediation of urban property conflicts" which will "guarantee the required legal process and the social function of property." It uses similar language for rural property conflicts. According the conservative Spanish publication El Pais, this language is almost identical to that of Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez, who speaks of the concept of "social property."
The Program has caused consternation and provoked threats of resignation from senior military leaders for proposing the creation of a "Truth Commission" to examine crimes committed by the military regime of the 1960s and 70s. Military leaders are exempt from prosecution from such crimes according to current Brazilian laws. Lula has calmed fears among military leaders by agreeing to apply the commission to all violations of "human rights," which presumably includes the terroristic activities of the socialist opposition during the same period.
Controversy Erupts in Brazil
Although President Lula has quieted fears of a socialist witchhunt against its former military enemies, the plan continues to provoke outrage and fierce opposition within Brazil.
Reinaldo Azevedo, blogging for the widely-read news magazine Veja, says that the proposals would constitute a "dictatorship" run by associates of president Luiz Lula, calls it a bloodless "coup d'etat," and compares the regime it proposes to that of Hugo Chavez, who is gradually eliminating civil liberties in Venezuela.
Azevedo also writes that the proposals would "extinguish private property in the country and the cities" and avers that "the Military Regime instituted in 1964 was more explicit and more modest" in its intentions.
Dimas Lara Resende, Secretary-General of the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops, has commented that "next we will have to demolish the statue of Christ the Redeemer."
Broadcast media and agricultural associations have also raised their voices against the proposals.
The President of the National Confederation of Agriculture, Senator Katia Abreu, has reportedly said that the creation of mediation programs in cases in which people invade private property will encourage rural violence and prejudice the rights of property owners. Andre Meloni Nassar, Director General of the Institute for Studies of Commerce and International Businesses writes that the Program is a "funeral for agribusiness."
Even Lula's Minister of Agrigulture, Reinhold Stephanes, has rejected the idea, expressing fears that such measures will "increase the insecurity in the country" and "strengthen radical organizations."
Although Lula has himself expressed concern about some of the material in the Program, he appears determined to defend it, although it threatens to undermine his strong popularity in his last year of office.
This story can be found at: http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35290&page=2
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Presidents continue support to kill babies
This is the statement that the President made supporting all abortion.
Today we recognize the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which affirms every woman’s fundamental constitutional right to choose whether to have an abortion, as well as each American’s right to privacy from government intrusion. I have, and continue to, support these constitutional rights.
I also remain committed to working with people of good will to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and families, and strengthen the adoption system.
Today and every day, we must strive to ensure that all women have limitless opportunities to fulfill their dreams.
This statement can be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-37th-anniversary-supreme-court-decision-roe-v-wade
Today we recognize the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which affirms every woman’s fundamental constitutional right to choose whether to have an abortion, as well as each American’s right to privacy from government intrusion. I have, and continue to, support these constitutional rights.
I also remain committed to working with people of good will to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and families, and strengthen the adoption system.
Today and every day, we must strive to ensure that all women have limitless opportunities to fulfill their dreams.
This statement can be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-37th-anniversary-supreme-court-decision-roe-v-wade
Kenyan bishops will oppose new national constitution unless it protects life from conception
The bishops of Kenya have announced that they will oppose a new constitution being considered by the nation’s lawmakers unless it explicitly protects the right to life from conception to natural death.
“A constitution that does not protect life in all its phases is irremediably faulty and ceases to demand any recognition,” the bishops said in a statement. “We strongly feel that we cannot be party to any legislation that supports a culture of death. Life begins at conception and ends with natural death, and any attempt to deny this truth is wrong and misleading.”
25% of Kenya’s 37.2 million people are Catholics; approximately half are Protestants and 10% are Muslims, while 10% hold indigenous beliefs
This could be found at: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5224
“A constitution that does not protect life in all its phases is irremediably faulty and ceases to demand any recognition,” the bishops said in a statement. “We strongly feel that we cannot be party to any legislation that supports a culture of death. Life begins at conception and ends with natural death, and any attempt to deny this truth is wrong and misleading.”
25% of Kenya’s 37.2 million people are Catholics; approximately half are Protestants and 10% are Muslims, while 10% hold indigenous beliefs
This could be found at: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5224
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Good videos
There was a video on the March for Life in Dallas that is on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALIy2kICzO4&feature=player_embedded
Watch what is being said at the end.
Also you can watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPREbOO1BgU&feature=player_embedded##
Both are very good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALIy2kICzO4&feature=player_embedded
Watch what is being said at the end.
Also you can watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPREbOO1BgU&feature=player_embedded##
Both are very good
Monday, January 18, 2010
Super Bowl pro-life ad to feature Tim Tebow and mother
Colorado Springs, Colo., Jan 18, 2010 / 07:18 pm (CNA).- A pro-life ad featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother will be aired during the Super Bowl broadcast on CBS. The 30-second ad, sponsored by Focus on the Family, intends to encourage respect for life.
Tebow’s parents served as Christian missionaries in the Philippines. His mother, Pam, had contracted a life-threatening infection while pregnant with him, but she refused medical advice to abort her unborn son.
The Super Bowl ad will tell their story, Focus on the Family says. Its theme will be “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.”
In the past, Tebow has said he believes his mother’s story has helped women decide not to abort their children.
The Tebows said they agreed to appear in the commercial because they feel very strongly about the life issue.
Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, said the partnership with the Tebows comes at a moment in the culture when families “need to be inspired.”
"Tim and Pam share our respect for life and our passion for helping families thrive," Daly commented. "They live what we see every day – that the desire for family closeness is written on the hearts of every generation. Focus on the Family is about nurturing that desire and strengthening families by empowering them with the tools they need to live lives rooted in morals and values."
He reported that the funding for the ad comes from a handful of “very generous” donors who specifically contributed funds for the project. No money from Focus on the Family’s general fund was used, the organization adds.
"Now that the ad has been shot, we're excited to tell people it's coming, because the Tebows' story is such an important one for our culture to hear," Daly said. "You won't want to miss it."
Last year CatholicVote.org created a pro-life ad using the image of President Barack Obama on the theme “Life: Imagine the Potential.”
The group had submitted the ad for NBC’s Super Bowl broadcast but it was rejected on the grounds that the network does not show ads involving “political advocacy or issues.” CatholicVote.org denied there was anything objectionable in the ad.
Despite NBC’s refusal to air the ad, titled “Imagine,” hundreds of thousands of people still viewed the 30-second spot on YouTube.
This can be seen at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/super_bowl_pro-life_ad_to_feature_tim_tebow_and_mother/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Tebow’s parents served as Christian missionaries in the Philippines. His mother, Pam, had contracted a life-threatening infection while pregnant with him, but she refused medical advice to abort her unborn son.
The Super Bowl ad will tell their story, Focus on the Family says. Its theme will be “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.”
In the past, Tebow has said he believes his mother’s story has helped women decide not to abort their children.
The Tebows said they agreed to appear in the commercial because they feel very strongly about the life issue.
Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, said the partnership with the Tebows comes at a moment in the culture when families “need to be inspired.”
"Tim and Pam share our respect for life and our passion for helping families thrive," Daly commented. "They live what we see every day – that the desire for family closeness is written on the hearts of every generation. Focus on the Family is about nurturing that desire and strengthening families by empowering them with the tools they need to live lives rooted in morals and values."
He reported that the funding for the ad comes from a handful of “very generous” donors who specifically contributed funds for the project. No money from Focus on the Family’s general fund was used, the organization adds.
"Now that the ad has been shot, we're excited to tell people it's coming, because the Tebows' story is such an important one for our culture to hear," Daly said. "You won't want to miss it."
Last year CatholicVote.org created a pro-life ad using the image of President Barack Obama on the theme “Life: Imagine the Potential.”
The group had submitted the ad for NBC’s Super Bowl broadcast but it was rejected on the grounds that the network does not show ads involving “political advocacy or issues.” CatholicVote.org denied there was anything objectionable in the ad.
Despite NBC’s refusal to air the ad, titled “Imagine,” hundreds of thousands of people still viewed the 30-second spot on YouTube.
This can be seen at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/super_bowl_pro-life_ad_to_feature_tim_tebow_and_mother/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Saturday, January 16, 2010
'Right to abortion' enslaves women, expert warns
Madrid, Spain, Jan 16, 2010 / 01:08 am (CNA).- Iñigo Urien Azpitarte, an expert on violence against women warned this week that the “right to abortion” championed by feminists and abortion supporters ends up enslaving women because they are turned into instruments of sexual gratification.
“If the woman can abort without restrictions, the man is free of any responsibility as father,” leaving the “woman as his tool of sexual gratification in a position of ‘non-equality’,” Azpitarte said.
Speaking with the organization “Professionals for Ethics,” he added that women also can come out on the losing end if they decide to keep the child, because the father will say she chose not to exercise her “right to an abortion.” He can then easily escape responsibility for the child's future.
In these sense, he explained, access to “abortion on demand” has affected relations between men and women. “It is not uncommon to hear young people, and not-so-young people, say that they are in favor of abortion because they do not like to use condoms. Thus, if a man thinks that abortion is an easily accessible option for a woman, he will easily feel disconnected from her and leave her with an unwanted pregnancy - since she can easily obtain an abortion.”
“While it is true that some women can resist pressure and refuse to abort, the legalization of abortion creates a vicious circle from which many others cannot escape,” he said.
The right to abortion is one of those legal notions thought to be “liberating” that actually jeopardizes women, putting them in a situation of profound inequality, Azpitarte stated before criticizing the Socialist government in Spain for not supporting pregnant women.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/right_to_abortion_enslaves_women_expert_warns/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
“If the woman can abort without restrictions, the man is free of any responsibility as father,” leaving the “woman as his tool of sexual gratification in a position of ‘non-equality’,” Azpitarte said.
Speaking with the organization “Professionals for Ethics,” he added that women also can come out on the losing end if they decide to keep the child, because the father will say she chose not to exercise her “right to an abortion.” He can then easily escape responsibility for the child's future.
In these sense, he explained, access to “abortion on demand” has affected relations between men and women. “It is not uncommon to hear young people, and not-so-young people, say that they are in favor of abortion because they do not like to use condoms. Thus, if a man thinks that abortion is an easily accessible option for a woman, he will easily feel disconnected from her and leave her with an unwanted pregnancy - since she can easily obtain an abortion.”
“While it is true that some women can resist pressure and refuse to abort, the legalization of abortion creates a vicious circle from which many others cannot escape,” he said.
The right to abortion is one of those legal notions thought to be “liberating” that actually jeopardizes women, putting them in a situation of profound inequality, Azpitarte stated before criticizing the Socialist government in Spain for not supporting pregnant women.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/right_to_abortion_enslaves_women_expert_warns/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Friday, January 15, 2010
Authentic sex education supports marriage and family, Pope says
Pope Benedict XVI said that young people must be given “a lofty vision of human love and sexuality,” during a January 14 meeting with Italian politicians. He decried a approach to sexuality that “tends to devalue” the beauty of married love.
In an annual meeting with the political leaders of Rome and the surrounding Lazio region, the Holy Father called for government support of families, “especially large families,” noting that strong families are essential to a healthy society. He also urged careful consideration of plans for effective health-care policies that will provide for the needy.
Regarding sex education, the Pope told the group: “In pronouncing her No’s, the Church really is saying ‘Yes’ to life, to love lived in the truth of the giving of self to the other, to the love that opens up to life and does not close itself in a narcissistic view of the couple.”
This can be found at: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5173
In an annual meeting with the political leaders of Rome and the surrounding Lazio region, the Holy Father called for government support of families, “especially large families,” noting that strong families are essential to a healthy society. He also urged careful consideration of plans for effective health-care policies that will provide for the needy.
Regarding sex education, the Pope told the group: “In pronouncing her No’s, the Church really is saying ‘Yes’ to life, to love lived in the truth of the giving of self to the other, to the love that opens up to life and does not close itself in a narcissistic view of the couple.”
This can be found at: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5173
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
California abortionist accused of gross negligence in woman’s death
San Diego, Calif., Jan 12, 2010 / 03:31 am (CNA).- After the death of a 30-year-old woman who underwent an abortion, a previously disciplined California abortionist has been accused of gross negligence, incompetence and other legal violations. A judge has ordered him to stop performing abortions until his medical license is reviewed, while critics say their complaints were not addressed.
After a Jan. 7 hearing in San Diego, Administrative Law Judge James Ahler ordered Dr. Andrew Rutland to limit his practice to procedures other than abortion and delivering babies, the California Catholic Daily reports.
At a clinic in San Gabriel in August 2009, a woman named Ying Chen went into full cardiac arrest after a second-trimester abortion by Rutland on July 28, 2009. She died six days later at a nearby hospital.
Medical board records said she had been injected with the “dangerous” narcotic painkiller Demerol and the local anesthetic lidocaine. Her heart stopped beating and a later autopsy found that she died from lidocaine toxicity.
Judge Ahler said Rutland’s decision to perform the abortion at the San Gabriel clinic, which did not have adequate equipment to handle medical emergencies, “casts doubt on his professional judgment.”
The judge issued a ruling prohibiting Rutland from performing surgical procedures of any kind. However, he rejected the request by medical board representative Deputy Attorney General Douglas Lee that the doctor’s license should be immediately revoked.
Luis Mendoza, a pro-life advocate who conducts sidewalk counseling outside the Chula Vista clinic where Rutland operates, said that the medical board could have saved the woman’s life had it acted promptly on complaints filed about Rutland’s activities at the abortion facility.
“We complained that he was violating the terms of his probation by practicing medicine in the Chula Vista clinic without another doctor being present,” he said in an e-mail to San Diego-area pro-lifers. “Rutland overdosed the poor woman on July 28th. Four months after our complaint. A cease and desist order should have been issued against Rutland before the woman was killed.”
Mendoza reported he had received a call from the medical board in November, eight months after the original complaint. The board said that the investigation had been completed and the results had been forwarded to the attorney general.
At the time of Ying Chen’s death, Rutland was on five years of probation by the California Medical Board.
In 2002 he surrendered his medical license after investigations into the death of two newborns shortly after they had been delivered by Rutland, the California Catholic Daily reports. He was also accused of performing unnecessary hysterectomies, lying to patients, and having sexual relations with a patient in his office.
His license was later reinstated on the condition that he not practice medicine unless he was under the supervision of another qualified physician. Some of his former patients were outraged when he was reinstated, the Orange County Register reported.
One of the infants who died in his care, Jillian Broussard, had her spinal cord injured by forceps during her 1999 delivery. She died a week later.
Jillian’s father, Scott Broussard, said he and his wife were very disappointed that Rutland was allowed to practice again. The doctor had insisted Jillian had suffered a stroke.
Broussard told the Register the new allegation “doesn’t surprise me at all.”
“There’s the making of a mistake, but then there’s the way that it was made and the reaction by him afterward. He was not a man of honor or integrity… The responsibility for this death is on the medical board, to be shared with Dr. Rutland. They’re supposed to protect the public and they have failed.”
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/california_abortionist_accused_of_gross_negligence_in_womans_death/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
After a Jan. 7 hearing in San Diego, Administrative Law Judge James Ahler ordered Dr. Andrew Rutland to limit his practice to procedures other than abortion and delivering babies, the California Catholic Daily reports.
At a clinic in San Gabriel in August 2009, a woman named Ying Chen went into full cardiac arrest after a second-trimester abortion by Rutland on July 28, 2009. She died six days later at a nearby hospital.
Medical board records said she had been injected with the “dangerous” narcotic painkiller Demerol and the local anesthetic lidocaine. Her heart stopped beating and a later autopsy found that she died from lidocaine toxicity.
Judge Ahler said Rutland’s decision to perform the abortion at the San Gabriel clinic, which did not have adequate equipment to handle medical emergencies, “casts doubt on his professional judgment.”
The judge issued a ruling prohibiting Rutland from performing surgical procedures of any kind. However, he rejected the request by medical board representative Deputy Attorney General Douglas Lee that the doctor’s license should be immediately revoked.
Luis Mendoza, a pro-life advocate who conducts sidewalk counseling outside the Chula Vista clinic where Rutland operates, said that the medical board could have saved the woman’s life had it acted promptly on complaints filed about Rutland’s activities at the abortion facility.
“We complained that he was violating the terms of his probation by practicing medicine in the Chula Vista clinic without another doctor being present,” he said in an e-mail to San Diego-area pro-lifers. “Rutland overdosed the poor woman on July 28th. Four months after our complaint. A cease and desist order should have been issued against Rutland before the woman was killed.”
Mendoza reported he had received a call from the medical board in November, eight months after the original complaint. The board said that the investigation had been completed and the results had been forwarded to the attorney general.
At the time of Ying Chen’s death, Rutland was on five years of probation by the California Medical Board.
In 2002 he surrendered his medical license after investigations into the death of two newborns shortly after they had been delivered by Rutland, the California Catholic Daily reports. He was also accused of performing unnecessary hysterectomies, lying to patients, and having sexual relations with a patient in his office.
His license was later reinstated on the condition that he not practice medicine unless he was under the supervision of another qualified physician. Some of his former patients were outraged when he was reinstated, the Orange County Register reported.
One of the infants who died in his care, Jillian Broussard, had her spinal cord injured by forceps during her 1999 delivery. She died a week later.
Jillian’s father, Scott Broussard, said he and his wife were very disappointed that Rutland was allowed to practice again. The doctor had insisted Jillian had suffered a stroke.
Broussard told the Register the new allegation “doesn’t surprise me at all.”
“There’s the making of a mistake, but then there’s the way that it was made and the reaction by him afterward. He was not a man of honor or integrity… The responsibility for this death is on the medical board, to be shared with Dr. Rutland. They’re supposed to protect the public and they have failed.”
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/california_abortionist_accused_of_gross_negligence_in_womans_death/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Monday, January 11, 2010
True Environmentalists Are Pro-Life, Says Pope
Affirms Ecology Issue Should Be Set in Larger Framework
VATICAN CITY, JAN. 11, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI says efforts to protect the environment cannot be opposed to human life and safeguarding the dignity of the person.
The Pope took up this theme today when he delivered his traditional New Year address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See.
The Holy Father's address for 2010 centered on the issue of respect for creation and the environment, the same theme he highlighted in his Jan. 1 World Day of Peace message.
He noted not humanity in this new year "continues to be marked by the dramatic crisis of the global economy and consequently a serious and widespread social instability."
The "deeper causes" of this situation, the Pontiff contended, "are to be found in a current self-centered and materialistic way of thinking which fails to acknowledge the limitations inherent in every creature."
This same way of thinking, Benedict XVI proposed, also endangers creation.
He explained: "Each of us could probably cite an example of the damage that this has caused to the environment the world over. I will offer an example, from any number of others, taken from the recent history of Europe. Twenty years ago, after the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the materialistic and atheistic regimes which had for several decades dominated a part of this continent, was it not easy to assess the great harm which an economic system lacking any reference to the truth about man had done not only to the dignity and freedom of individuals and peoples, but to nature itself, by polluting soil, water and air? The denial of God distorts the freedom of the human person, yet it also devastates creation.
"It follows that the protection of creation is not principally a response to an aesthetic need, but much more to a moral need, in as much as nature expresses a plan of love and truth which is prior to us and which comes from God."
The Pope said because of this, he shares the "growing concern" caused by "economic and political resistance to combatting the degradation of the environment."
"The issue is all the more important in that the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states," he said.
Great challenges
Nevertheless, the Bishop of Rome affirmed that concern and commitment for the environment "should be situated within the larger framework of the great challenges now facing mankind."
"If we wish to build true peace," he said, "how can we separate, or even set at odds, the protection of the environment and the protection of human life, including the life of the unborn? It is in man’s respect for himself that his sense of responsibility for creation is shown."
Citing St. Thomas Aquinas, the Holy Father said that "man represents all that is most noble in the universe."
"Furthermore," he affirmed, "as I noted during the recent FAO World Summit on Food Security, 'the world has enough food for all its inhabitants' provided that selfishness does not lead some to hoard the goods which are intended for all."
This can be found at: http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-28022
VATICAN CITY, JAN. 11, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI says efforts to protect the environment cannot be opposed to human life and safeguarding the dignity of the person.
The Pope took up this theme today when he delivered his traditional New Year address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See.
The Holy Father's address for 2010 centered on the issue of respect for creation and the environment, the same theme he highlighted in his Jan. 1 World Day of Peace message.
He noted not humanity in this new year "continues to be marked by the dramatic crisis of the global economy and consequently a serious and widespread social instability."
The "deeper causes" of this situation, the Pontiff contended, "are to be found in a current self-centered and materialistic way of thinking which fails to acknowledge the limitations inherent in every creature."
This same way of thinking, Benedict XVI proposed, also endangers creation.
He explained: "Each of us could probably cite an example of the damage that this has caused to the environment the world over. I will offer an example, from any number of others, taken from the recent history of Europe. Twenty years ago, after the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the materialistic and atheistic regimes which had for several decades dominated a part of this continent, was it not easy to assess the great harm which an economic system lacking any reference to the truth about man had done not only to the dignity and freedom of individuals and peoples, but to nature itself, by polluting soil, water and air? The denial of God distorts the freedom of the human person, yet it also devastates creation.
"It follows that the protection of creation is not principally a response to an aesthetic need, but much more to a moral need, in as much as nature expresses a plan of love and truth which is prior to us and which comes from God."
The Pope said because of this, he shares the "growing concern" caused by "economic and political resistance to combatting the degradation of the environment."
"The issue is all the more important in that the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states," he said.
Great challenges
Nevertheless, the Bishop of Rome affirmed that concern and commitment for the environment "should be situated within the larger framework of the great challenges now facing mankind."
"If we wish to build true peace," he said, "how can we separate, or even set at odds, the protection of the environment and the protection of human life, including the life of the unborn? It is in man’s respect for himself that his sense of responsibility for creation is shown."
Citing St. Thomas Aquinas, the Holy Father said that "man represents all that is most noble in the universe."
"Furthermore," he affirmed, "as I noted during the recent FAO World Summit on Food Security, 'the world has enough food for all its inhabitants' provided that selfishness does not lead some to hoard the goods which are intended for all."
This can be found at: http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-28022
Thursday, January 7, 2010
2009 study confirms abortion-breast cancer link
Bethesda, Md., Jan 7, 2010 / 07:40 am (CNA).- An April 2009 study co-authored by a researcher who has previously denied an abortion-breast cancer link shows a statistically significant increase in breast cancer risk among women who have had abortions or who use oral contraceptives. The study by researchers including Jessica Dolle of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research contained a table reporting a statistically significant 40 percent risk increase for women who have had abortions. According to the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer (CABC), the study listed abortion as among “known and suspected risk factors.”
The CABC says that one co-author of the study, U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher Dr. Louise Brinton, had organized a 2003 NCI workshop on the abortion-breast cancer link. That workshop reportedly said the non-existence of an abortion-breast cancer link was “well established.”
CNA contacted Dr. Brinton for comment but did not receive a reply by publication time.
Dr. Joel Brind, who is a CBCP advisor and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute and a professor of endocrinology at Baruch College at City University of New York, said that the study’s findings on abortion were not new.
Rather, they repeated the “modest but significant” findings of the 1990s which found a breast cancer risk factor increase of between 20 and 50 percent.
However, he said Dr. Brinton’s participation in the study was significant because the NCI has “firmly maintained” a position denying an abortion-breast cancer link since 2003.
The study, titled “Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years,” was published in the American Association for Cancer Research’s (AACR) medical journal “Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.”
Researchers also found a significant link between the use of oral contraceptives and a particularly aggressive cancer known as triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).
Brind said that according to the study, women who start oral contraceptives before the age of 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times. Those who were users of oral contraceptives within one to five years before the study showed a risk 4.2 times the average.
TNBC is associated with high mortality. Brind suggested that oral contraceptives may function not merely as a secondary carcinogen. Rather, the synthetic estrogen-progestin combination or its metabolic byproducts may be a primary cause of the cell mutations that lead to cancer formation.
CBCP president Karen Malec criticized that the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer organizations for not issuing nationwide warnings to women on the basis of the study.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/2009_study_confirms_abortion-breast_cancer_link/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
The CABC says that one co-author of the study, U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) researcher Dr. Louise Brinton, had organized a 2003 NCI workshop on the abortion-breast cancer link. That workshop reportedly said the non-existence of an abortion-breast cancer link was “well established.”
CNA contacted Dr. Brinton for comment but did not receive a reply by publication time.
Dr. Joel Brind, who is a CBCP advisor and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute and a professor of endocrinology at Baruch College at City University of New York, said that the study’s findings on abortion were not new.
Rather, they repeated the “modest but significant” findings of the 1990s which found a breast cancer risk factor increase of between 20 and 50 percent.
However, he said Dr. Brinton’s participation in the study was significant because the NCI has “firmly maintained” a position denying an abortion-breast cancer link since 2003.
The study, titled “Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years,” was published in the American Association for Cancer Research’s (AACR) medical journal “Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.”
Researchers also found a significant link between the use of oral contraceptives and a particularly aggressive cancer known as triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).
Brind said that according to the study, women who start oral contraceptives before the age of 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times. Those who were users of oral contraceptives within one to five years before the study showed a risk 4.2 times the average.
TNBC is associated with high mortality. Brind suggested that oral contraceptives may function not merely as a secondary carcinogen. Rather, the synthetic estrogen-progestin combination or its metabolic byproducts may be a primary cause of the cell mutations that lead to cancer formation.
CBCP president Karen Malec criticized that the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer organizations for not issuing nationwide warnings to women on the basis of the study.
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/2009_study_confirms_abortion-breast_cancer_link/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Planned Parenthood to Build a ‘Super Center’ in Minority Community in Houston
HOUSTON, TX (Catholic online) – I remember when Wal-Mart began to build its “Supercenters”. There were protests around the country. Most of those opposing the construction were concerned about the impact such centers would have on local businesses and the families and communities which depend upon them. The plans for the Centers have usually survived the protests and court challenges. However, the protests continue.
Now, in Houston Texas, a new kind of “Supercenter” is to be built. However, the product which will be sold as a commodity in this “Supercenter” will include the killing of children in the womb. In fact, there is a whole wing which will be dedicated to providing late term abortions. CNS News reports:
“A coalition of pro-life advocates and religious leaders plan to gather in Houston on Jan. 18 to oppose what is expected to be the largest abortion clinic in the country. Planned Parenthood is renovating a former bank, turning it into a 78,000 square foot facility that will include a surgical wing equipped to provide late-term abortions.
“It’s an abortion super center,” Lou Engle, founder of the pro-life group The Call to Conscience, which is organizing the rally, told CNSNews.com. Joining Engle at the “prayer march” will be Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. Religious leaders expected to attend include Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church; Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Star Parker, president of the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education; and Abby Johnson, the former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic.
“Engle compared the fight for the rights of the unborn to another critical movement in America. “As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ‘It is time to subpoena the conscience of America,’” he said. Engle said he believes the clinic was strategically located in a part of Houston that is surrounded by black and Hispanic neighborhoods. “We want to say that it’s not right to have an abortion super center that targets the minority community,” Engle said. He says Planned Parenthood actively markets its services, including abortion, to low-income, minority women.”
Planned Parenthood is built on a lie. They have dressed themselves up as a “Health Care Provider” while they include taking the lives of innocent children in the womb as a “reproductive service.” They have insinuated themselves into the global delivery of “medical services” and receive massive government funding, some of which they use to kill. That funding is increasing under the current Administration.
There is nothing “reproductive” about abortion. It is certainly not a service to the child, the mother, the father or society. Nor is it ever “health care”. It is feticide. Funding it is morally repugnant. Planned Parenthood is the leading institutional champion of a culture which has redefined “choice” to include killing the young and “freedom” to include the commission of unspeakable horrors against an entire class of people.
They charge women, many of whom have been deceived and are themselves the second victims, for killing their own children. The “medical professionals” who perform the violent acts do so through surgical strikes, brutal suction or, what they euphemistically now call a “medication abortion” which is the use of a chemical weapon.
Planned Parenthood is anything but a good neighbor wherever they open up for business. Every person alive today began their human life in that sanctuary of life, the womb. No one with any integrity or genuine moral sensibility is claiming any longer that the child in the womb, whom we now surgically operate on and whom we can see clearly in 4D images, is not a human being.In fact they are our first neighbors and Planned Parenthood helps to kill them.
The argument being made to attempt to justify this killing is the perverse idea that “freedom” enables the one with more power to engage a so called “medical professional” to reach in the sanctuary of the womb and take the life. The fundamental human right to life of that child is completely disregarded. We would not make the same argument about a one year old child living outside of the womb, in the nursery. There is no moral distinction between what Planned Parenthood does, killing a child in the womb, and killing one year old children who are not wanted.
The manufactured time thresholds of “viability”, as interpreted under the inane structure forced upon us by the Roe and Doe decisions keep getting pushed back. They have been exposed for the sham they always were. Technology now reveals the truth about our smallest neighbors.We routinely operate on them. Medical Science confirms what our consciences haveknown all along. Abortion is killing innocent children.
Our positive (civil) law has rejected the Natural Law prohibition against this intentional homicide. We use Orwellian doublespeak to try and hide the evil. There is never a need for abortion. There is a need to help the mother who is carrying her child by providing her with the truth and with all the support that she deserves.
There is a need to defend our youngest neighbor during the pregnancy against those who mean him or her harm. There is a need to then help him or her after birth throughout the continuum of life. However, there is never a “need”, nor a moral justification, for taking innocent human life.
For this evil organization to choose a minority community in which to build a new killing “Supercenter” makes the construction even more reprehensible.
The protest on January 18 should be the first of many persistent, protracted protests. I know Rev. Sam Rodriquez and Bishop Harry Jackson personally. I have the highest respect for them. They are men of great integrity with tremendous leadership gifts and respect within their communities. They know what is really going on here.
The selection of this location simply confirms what many have long suspected about Planned Parenthood. After all, its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a known racist and a proponent of eugenics. The exposes of Planned Parenthood activities in minority communities in the last twenty months led Dr Alveda King to call for an investigation by the US Attorney General for Civil Rights violations!
We encourage our readers to pray for those who will gather in Houston next week and support their efforts. Houston is not the only place where Planned Parenthood intends to expand its evil business empire hiding behind the law of Non profit organizations. In the current economic recession this evil organization seems to be in an expansion mode. I was recently informed that they are planning to build a new facility on 515 Newtown Road, in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Local residents are gathering on June 16, 2009 to conduct a similar protest of that construction.
In Houston, Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Rochelle Tafolla made light of the planned protests telling a local reporter "They'll try to stop our contractors, but fortunately [the contractors] know what's going on -- they say 'Hey, it's a bad economy and I'm working; what are you doing?'" God help us all when such a mindset is in charge.
If the Wal-Mart Supercenters raised concerns about the impact on local communities and the families living therein, how much more this new kind of “Supercenter” - where innocent human lives will be taken - must bring a massive response and resistance.
Now, in Houston Texas, a new kind of “Supercenter” is to be built. However, the product which will be sold as a commodity in this “Supercenter” will include the killing of children in the womb. In fact, there is a whole wing which will be dedicated to providing late term abortions. CNS News reports:
“A coalition of pro-life advocates and religious leaders plan to gather in Houston on Jan. 18 to oppose what is expected to be the largest abortion clinic in the country. Planned Parenthood is renovating a former bank, turning it into a 78,000 square foot facility that will include a surgical wing equipped to provide late-term abortions.
“It’s an abortion super center,” Lou Engle, founder of the pro-life group The Call to Conscience, which is organizing the rally, told CNSNews.com. Joining Engle at the “prayer march” will be Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. Religious leaders expected to attend include Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church; Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; Star Parker, president of the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education; and Abby Johnson, the former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic.
“Engle compared the fight for the rights of the unborn to another critical movement in America. “As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ‘It is time to subpoena the conscience of America,’” he said. Engle said he believes the clinic was strategically located in a part of Houston that is surrounded by black and Hispanic neighborhoods. “We want to say that it’s not right to have an abortion super center that targets the minority community,” Engle said. He says Planned Parenthood actively markets its services, including abortion, to low-income, minority women.”
Planned Parenthood is built on a lie. They have dressed themselves up as a “Health Care Provider” while they include taking the lives of innocent children in the womb as a “reproductive service.” They have insinuated themselves into the global delivery of “medical services” and receive massive government funding, some of which they use to kill. That funding is increasing under the current Administration.
There is nothing “reproductive” about abortion. It is certainly not a service to the child, the mother, the father or society. Nor is it ever “health care”. It is feticide. Funding it is morally repugnant. Planned Parenthood is the leading institutional champion of a culture which has redefined “choice” to include killing the young and “freedom” to include the commission of unspeakable horrors against an entire class of people.
They charge women, many of whom have been deceived and are themselves the second victims, for killing their own children. The “medical professionals” who perform the violent acts do so through surgical strikes, brutal suction or, what they euphemistically now call a “medication abortion” which is the use of a chemical weapon.
Planned Parenthood is anything but a good neighbor wherever they open up for business. Every person alive today began their human life in that sanctuary of life, the womb. No one with any integrity or genuine moral sensibility is claiming any longer that the child in the womb, whom we now surgically operate on and whom we can see clearly in 4D images, is not a human being.In fact they are our first neighbors and Planned Parenthood helps to kill them.
The argument being made to attempt to justify this killing is the perverse idea that “freedom” enables the one with more power to engage a so called “medical professional” to reach in the sanctuary of the womb and take the life. The fundamental human right to life of that child is completely disregarded. We would not make the same argument about a one year old child living outside of the womb, in the nursery. There is no moral distinction between what Planned Parenthood does, killing a child in the womb, and killing one year old children who are not wanted.
The manufactured time thresholds of “viability”, as interpreted under the inane structure forced upon us by the Roe and Doe decisions keep getting pushed back. They have been exposed for the sham they always were. Technology now reveals the truth about our smallest neighbors.We routinely operate on them. Medical Science confirms what our consciences haveknown all along. Abortion is killing innocent children.
Our positive (civil) law has rejected the Natural Law prohibition against this intentional homicide. We use Orwellian doublespeak to try and hide the evil. There is never a need for abortion. There is a need to help the mother who is carrying her child by providing her with the truth and with all the support that she deserves.
There is a need to defend our youngest neighbor during the pregnancy against those who mean him or her harm. There is a need to then help him or her after birth throughout the continuum of life. However, there is never a “need”, nor a moral justification, for taking innocent human life.
For this evil organization to choose a minority community in which to build a new killing “Supercenter” makes the construction even more reprehensible.
The protest on January 18 should be the first of many persistent, protracted protests. I know Rev. Sam Rodriquez and Bishop Harry Jackson personally. I have the highest respect for them. They are men of great integrity with tremendous leadership gifts and respect within their communities. They know what is really going on here.
The selection of this location simply confirms what many have long suspected about Planned Parenthood. After all, its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a known racist and a proponent of eugenics. The exposes of Planned Parenthood activities in minority communities in the last twenty months led Dr Alveda King to call for an investigation by the US Attorney General for Civil Rights violations!
We encourage our readers to pray for those who will gather in Houston next week and support their efforts. Houston is not the only place where Planned Parenthood intends to expand its evil business empire hiding behind the law of Non profit organizations. In the current economic recession this evil organization seems to be in an expansion mode. I was recently informed that they are planning to build a new facility on 515 Newtown Road, in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Local residents are gathering on June 16, 2009 to conduct a similar protest of that construction.
In Houston, Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Rochelle Tafolla made light of the planned protests telling a local reporter "They'll try to stop our contractors, but fortunately [the contractors] know what's going on -- they say 'Hey, it's a bad economy and I'm working; what are you doing?'" God help us all when such a mindset is in charge.
If the Wal-Mart Supercenters raised concerns about the impact on local communities and the families living therein, how much more this new kind of “Supercenter” - where innocent human lives will be taken - must bring a massive response and resistance.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Montana Supreme Court issues weak decision on physician-assisted suicide
Helena, Mont., Jan 4, 2010 / 02:56 pm (CNA).- In its final decision of 2009, the Supreme Court of Montana denied victory to pro-euthanasia group “Compassion & Choices” on its quest for a right to “aid in dying” based on the Montana State Constitution.
In a split decision issued on December 31, the Supreme Court rejected the existence of a right to physician-assisted suicide and focused on issues of statutory construction to determine that Montana state law has no public policy against “aid in dying” because the final death causing act lies in the patient's hands, explained the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
In reaction, the EPC said in their statement that “the bright spot in the decision is that it does not give physicians the ‘right’ to prescribe a lethal dose, but only suggests that circumstances may exist to give them a defense to prosecution for homicide.”
Nevertheless, according to EPC, the decision “ignores the practical realities of ensuring patient safety from over-eager heirs, new ‘best friends’ and others who might benefit from the patient's death. For example, physicians who malpractice and who want to hide their mistakes can now say: ‘It was what the patient wanted.’ The evidence against the physician dies with the patient. If the patient has no family or other advocate, who will know?”
Eileen Geller, hospice RN and president of True Compassion Advocates, stated in a press release that “in practice, this means that while assisted suicide is still not legal in Montana, the Court has nevertheless stripped vulnerable patients of important legal protections. The ruling is a recipe for elder abuse and for the victimization of ill people.”
According to Geller, “the Montana Supreme Court expressly declined to hold that a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide exists under the Montana constitution. The Montana legislature must now step up to the plate, re-affirm over a hundred years of Montana public policy, and protect elderly, ill, and Montanans with disabilities.”
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/montana_supreme_court_issues_weak_decision_on_physicianassisted_suicide/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
In a split decision issued on December 31, the Supreme Court rejected the existence of a right to physician-assisted suicide and focused on issues of statutory construction to determine that Montana state law has no public policy against “aid in dying” because the final death causing act lies in the patient's hands, explained the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
In reaction, the EPC said in their statement that “the bright spot in the decision is that it does not give physicians the ‘right’ to prescribe a lethal dose, but only suggests that circumstances may exist to give them a defense to prosecution for homicide.”
Nevertheless, according to EPC, the decision “ignores the practical realities of ensuring patient safety from over-eager heirs, new ‘best friends’ and others who might benefit from the patient's death. For example, physicians who malpractice and who want to hide their mistakes can now say: ‘It was what the patient wanted.’ The evidence against the physician dies with the patient. If the patient has no family or other advocate, who will know?”
Eileen Geller, hospice RN and president of True Compassion Advocates, stated in a press release that “in practice, this means that while assisted suicide is still not legal in Montana, the Court has nevertheless stripped vulnerable patients of important legal protections. The ruling is a recipe for elder abuse and for the victimization of ill people.”
According to Geller, “the Montana Supreme Court expressly declined to hold that a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide exists under the Montana constitution. The Montana legislature must now step up to the plate, re-affirm over a hundred years of Montana public policy, and protect elderly, ill, and Montanans with disabilities.”
This can be found at: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/montana_supreme_court_issues_weak_decision_on_physicianassisted_suicide/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
